Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 160
  1. #101
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    67,182
    Active cases

    Texas - 191K active cases
    NY - 2,200,752 active cases

    Vaccination rate;

    Texas - 57.8%
    NY - 73%

    Math
    D M C

  2. #102
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,247
    Active cases

    Texas - 191K active cases
    NY - 2,200,752 active cases

    Vaccination rate;

    Texas - 57.8%
    NY - 73%

    Math
    Considering how this entire time tx had been lagging 3 weeks behind new York that actually scary as

  3. #103
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,209
    Active cases

    Texas - 191K active cases
    NY - 2,200,752 active cases

    Vaccination rate;

    Texas - 57.8%
    NY - 73%

    Math

  4. #104
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    because people who have contracted covid are the ones who can transmit it. this is how communicable diseases work.
    So who says only unvaxxed can contract COVID? There are plenty vaxxed people who have COVID. So what you're saying is an infected person is more dangerous than a non-infected person. But since you're vaxxed, you shouldn't have any issues, so they aren't really dangerous to you, right? Or are you trying to play both sides of the field here?
    umm, just about every clinical trial that was done with the vaccines? here's one for example

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345

    of course, variants like omicron are chipping away at the efficacy, but its still there, and similar research is out there with boosters
    But you don't know if you're in the percentage who will contract the virus so how can you say you're less dangerous? If you have the virus, you're just as dangerous as someone unvaxxed who has the virus. It might be harder on them, but the spread is the same. Isn't that why the CDC still recommends masks for both?
    this is irrelevant. i dont care how much less likely i am to contract it than them. its not a compe ion i'm trying to win. i dont know how many times i've had to make this same point to you
    If you're in a submarine, sharks outside might be dangerous to anyone outside the sub but not to you. It's completely relevant. The people inside wouldn't say the sharks are dangerous. The concept of being dangerous involves a relationship between two things. You're only referring to one thing (the unvaxxed person). You cannot simply be dangerous without being dangerous to someone/something. Dismissing that fact doesn't make it less of a fact. So who are these unvaxxed people more dangerous to than are vaxxed people?

    Them - more likely to contract the virus (Omicron says hi)
    You - Less likely to contract the virus

    Them - likely to spread it if infected
    You - likely to spread it if infected

    Seems like they lose on this deal, not you. In fact, since you're less likely to experience symptoms distinguishable from allergies, you're less likely to get tested so more likely to spread it. They are more likely to die, and dead people don't spread viruses that much.

    There's more variables and math than you're allowing for. You just call someone "more dangerous" based on a predetermined set of internal variables that don't apply outside of your own perception.
    even if, for arguments sake, i was about 50% less likely to contract covid from Poster B (or insert any percentage of your choosing, though we know it is not 100% and we know it is not 0%)

    a) if they have not contracted covid, they cannot transmit covid to me. (same for the unvaxxed)
    b) if they are unvaccinated, they are more likely to have contracted covid (and by extension, to transmit covid). (you haven't proven this)
    c) if a person does contract covid... unvaccinated people are likely to be sicker for longer periods of time, thereby increasing the duration of time when they can transmit covid (there is some mixed data here, but we can say that vaccinated people who contract covid, during the time they are sick, are about as likely as unvaccinated people to transmit it. thats why its crucial to decrease the period of time where one is sick) (more likely to be in hospital and know they are sick, so you have to factor that in as well)
    d) if a sick person is unmasked (and they have covid), they are more likely to transmit covid to me than a sick person not wearing a mask Not completely sure what you're saying here but.. (the sick person not wearing a mask is already infected. It wouldn't matter but the transmission would be equal. For one the infection would be irrelevant.)

    now you might have noticed that A-D are all true regardless of MY vaccination status. (nope) it's never just about me. its about the general public. that includes unvaccinated people too. it is irrelevant how likely I am vs person B when it comes to catching covid. somebody not taking precautionary measures puts himself, and by extension, others at an increased risk. (you're arguing by assertion. Darrin is double vaxxed and boosted and was still infected. His family was infected. Are they all in that 5% group? Seems you're taking the benefit of the doubt for your side and ignoring it for the other.)

    this is why the drunk driving analogy works. i am a sober driver. poster B is a drunk driver. i am less likely to get into a car accident than poster B in this state. nevertheless, poster B sharing the road with me puts me at a heightened risk of getting into an accident even though i have taken my necessary precaution (not drinking before getting behind the wheel).
    The drunk driving analogy does not work. You're not going to have a X% chance of being killed by a drunk driver when no one was drinking. You still have X% chance of contracting the virus and dying even if everyone is vaccinated and masked. This is why it absolutely is about the individual. You have to protect yourself. You're not going to get rid of the virus by walking around it. You have to become impervious to it.
    Last edited by DMC; 01-17-2022 at 08:11 PM.

  5. #105
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,209
    Every single person I know that has gotten infected last 3 weeks was fully vaxed.

    Probably around 30 ppl so far.

  6. #106
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    Darrin's family sample ok, but scientific studies not ok?

    Office with 114 employees, all vaccinated (fully) per their records.

    66 of them get COVID in same week.

    Just an anecdote?

    Odd how the CDC used the anecdote of a hair salon and a few people wearing masks to make policy.

  7. #107
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    Every single person I know that has gotten infected last 3 weeks was fully vaxed.

    Probably around 30 ppl so far.
    I know entire departments that shut down because everyone was out with COVID. All were vaxxed as per mandate. Now nurses are working with sick children while the nurse is positive for COVID, because they are vaxxed. We've reached re ation and there are those here who keep simping for whatever the CDC vomits out. 14 day quarantine... wait that hurts business? Ok 5.

    Why don't vaxxed and unvaxxed have different quarantines?

  8. #108
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    16,211
    ^ Lovely. Why don't you anti vax numb nutts now show us the hospitalization and death rate of Unvaxxed vs Vaxxed.

  9. #109
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    Considering how this entire time tx had been lagging 3 weeks behind new York that actually scary as
    Of all the cases I am personally aware of, not one is more than a mild allergy symptom, and most are asymptomatic and only aware because they got tested due to proximity. Obviously nobody knows for sure, but it is likely not going to be like Delta and original COVID where the death rate would be so much higher. No one is tracking the number of actual allergy cases, likely much higher.

  10. #110
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    ^ Lovely. Why don't you anti vax numb nutts now show us the hospitalization and death rate of Unvaxxed vs Vaxxed.
    You stupid mother er, no one ITT is anti-vax. Idiot. Run along and play with your kitty litter and post some about Ariana Grande's nip slip.

  11. #111
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    16,211
    Here I'll do it for you.
    Shuddering to think what your fat hands may be up to.

    Fact check: Are unvaxxed 20 times more likely to die of COVID? (houstonchronicle.com)

  12. #112
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,209
    ^ Lovely. Why don't you anti vax numb nutts now show us the hospitalization and death rate of Unvaxxed vs Vaxxed.
    You asked for it

    You not gonna like it


  13. #113
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,252
    So who says only unvaxxed can contract COVID? There are plenty vaxxed people who have COVID.
    literally nobody. this is your strawman. its about increased or decreased likelihood of harm. same way nobody says that only drunk drivers get into car accidents.

    the analogy still works

    So what you're saying is an infected person is more dangerous than a non-infected person.
    yes. and an unvaxxed person is more likely to be infected.


    But since you're vaxxed, you shouldn't have any issues, so they aren't really dangerous to you, right? Or are you trying to play both sides of the field here?
    nope. vaccines aren't 100% effective. sober drivers can still get into accidents too. the analogy continues to work


    But you don't know if you're in the percentage who will contract the virus so how can you say you're less dangerous? If you have the virus, you're just as dangerous as someone unvaxxed who has the virus. It might be harder on them, but the spread is the same. Isn't that why the CDC still recommends masks for both?
    nobody knows. this is called odds and probabilities. im less likely to cause harm to others.

    If you're in a submarine, sharks outside might be dangerous to anyone outside the sub but not to you. It's completely relevant. The people inside wouldn't say the sharks are dangerous. The concept of being dangerous involves a relationship between two things. You're only referring to one thing (the unvaxxed person). You cannot simply be dangerous without being dangerous to someone/something. Dismissing that fact doesn't make it less of a fact. So who are these unvaxxed people more dangerous to than are vaxxed people?
    a) the vaccine isn't 100% effective, so i'm not inside a submarine
    b) i dont only care about myself, there are a lot of other people who are unvaccinated or otherwise immunocompromised who rely on herd immunity

    i dont care if I'M safer than person B. i care if the general population is safer than it is now. we can do better.

    Them - more likely to contract the virus (Omicron says hi)
    You - Less likely to contract the virus

    Them - likely to spread it if infected
    You - likely to spread it if infected

    Seems like they lose on this deal, not you. In fact, since you're less likely to experience symptoms distinguishable from allergies, you're less likely to get tested so more likely to spread it. They are more likely to die, and dead people don't spread viruses that much.
    you keep making this a "me" vs "them" zero sum game. i win/they lose. thats not what im talking about at all. its a public health issue not a spurraider21 health issue.

    of course, a vaccinated person is "safer" than an unvaccinated person, not just from likelihood to contract, but also to suffer serious symptoms. but i dont care about making it an individual measuring contest of who is safer. my concern is that this is a pandemic. not just a threat to spurraider21

    There's more variables and math than you're allowing for. You just call someone "more dangerous" based on a predetermined set of internal variables that don't apply outside of your own perception.
    i call them more dangerous based on their likelihood of contracting the disease and the duration in which they are able to transmit it.

    The drunk driving analogy does not work. You're not going to have a X% chance of being killed by a drunk driver when no one was drinking. You still have X% chance of contracting the virus and dying even if everyone is vaccinated and masked.
    nice qualifier

    i still have an X% chance of dying on the road even if everybody is sober, just as will still have X% chance of contracting the virus even if everyone is vaccinated. the analogy still works

    YOUR analogy, with YOUR qualifier that i'd have 0% chance of being killed by a drunk driver would be like saying i'd have 0% chance of contracting the virus from an unvaccinated person (if everybody was sober, and if everybody was vaccinated). however, i dont necessarily care if i died from a drunk driver or sober driver. i just dont want to die. and less drunk drivers on the road makes it less likely that i will die on the road

    This is why it absolutely is about the individual. You have to protect yourself. You're not going to get rid of the virus by walking around it. You have to become impervious to it.
    its a collective effort

  14. #114
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    Here I'll do it for you.
    Shuddering to think what your fat hands may be up to.

    Fact check: Are unvaxxed 20 times more likely to die of COVID? (houstonchronicle.com)
    That would be interesting if it had anything at all to do with the discussion. Dead people aren't dangerous.

    Now run along and diddle yourself to your kiddie pics.

  15. #115
    Against Home Schooling Ef-man's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    10,548
    What is dmc’s data source?

    usafacts.org has different totals on cases.

    Total (all time) reported covid cases:
    Texas - 5,269,803
    NY - 4,408,210

    Total covid deaths:
    Texas - 75,633
    New York - 61,374

  16. #116
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,247
    You asked for it

    You not gonna like it

    That story is from august and had 2 people dying, I'd love for a world where only 2 people die

  17. #117
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    137,036
    Active cases

    Texas - 191K active cases
    NY - 2,200,752 active cases

    Vaccination rate;

    Texas - 57.8%
    NY - 73%

    Math
    Reporting uniform and accurate now.

  18. #118
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    literally nobody. this is your strawman. its about increased or decreased likelihood of harm. same way nobody says that only drunk drivers get into car accidents.

    the analogy still works
    You should let that one go already. Infected is infected. How easily that person became infected is up for debate, but if a vaxxed person is exposed once and an unvaxxed person is exposed once, and they are both infected, they are of equal danger. If both of you walked into a crowded elevator, both wearing or both not wearing masks, you'd have equal chances of infecting someone else. That's because YOU are not an average of the general public.
    yes. and an unvaxxed person is more likely to be infected.
    This isn't Schrödinger's cat. They are either infected are they are not infected. If they are infected they are dangerous but then so are you if you are infected.

    It's not like they are going to be in this quantum state of being both.
    nope. vaccines aren't 100% effective. sober drivers can still get into accidents too. the analogy continues to work
    But we are talking about odds when you talked about them getting infected. When it comes to you getting infected, you won't allow the benefit but you'll take the penalty of the equation for argument's sake. You have to work both sides of the equation, these odds cancel out to a point.

    Their odds of being infected 1/5 (for example)
    Your odds of being infected 1/25

    You cannot dismiss your benefit when considering the "dangerous" part. If you encountered 25 of infected him, you're probably infected. If he encounters 5 of infected you, he's infected. So since your odds of being infected are lower, you have a higher chance of infecting him than he has of infecting you.
    nobody knows. this is called odds and probabilities. im less likely to cause harm to others.
    You're more likely to cause harm to the unvaxxed, as illustrated above. This is compounded by being an asymptomatic carrier.

    a) the vaccine isn't 100% effective, so i'm not inside a submarine
    The analogy works and I'm using it. Interesting though that you present yourself as protected until it's used against your argument at which time you jump to the other side of the equation again (yeah but not 100%).
    b) i dont only care about myself, there are a lot of other people who are unvaccinated or otherwise immunocompromised who rely on herd immunity
    You should avoid being in contact with anyone else then.
    i dont care if I'M safer than person B. i care if the general population is safer than it is now. we can do better.
    The general population is made up of a lot of individuals though. Like a school of fish, each fish has to move independent of other fish but they appear to move as a single en y. You can say you're concerned for the school but that's only a name for a group of individuals. In reality you'd have concern for individuals who need to have self concern. After all, isn't that what you're preaching, self preservation through vaccination? X number of people died.. you better hope you're not next, etc...
    you keep making this a "me" vs "them" zero sum game. i win/they lose. thats not what im talking about at all. its a public health issue not a spurraider21 health issue.
    It's always an individual issue. We don't hook up to a single processing unit. We are sentient beings, independent in thought and action. Though our actions can have implications for many others, they do so on individual levels. Even a tornado kills on an individual level, this is why storm shelters work better than sirens. You can say it effects society as a whole, ok sure.. introduce me to this "whole" that is society. (bend over etc...)
    of course, a vaccinated person is "safer" than an unvaccinated person, not just from likelihood to contract, but also to suffer serious symptoms. but i dont care about making it an individual measuring contest of who is safer. my concern is that this is a pandemic. not just a threat to spurraider21
    You're making it a measuring contest of who's more dangerous. A venomous snake that can kill you with one bite is dangerous, now assume you're immune to their toxin. Though they might kill the non-immune, they can't hurt you much (there's a chance they puncture an artery and you bleed out or some infection sets in and kills you). So if you say the snake is more dangerous than you, since not everyone is immune, you need to specify who the snake is dangerous to and who you are dangerous to. You are dangerous to anyone unvaccinated (which it's been established here the the unvaxxed should all die) because they aren't immune. They aren't nearly as dangerous to you because you are immune. Multiply this times millions and the same scenario plays out repeatedly. There's your "general public".
    i call them more dangerous based on their likelihood of contracting the disease and the duration in which they are able to transmit it.
    Again, dangerous to whom?
    nice qualifier

    i still have an X% chance of dying on the road even if everybody is sober, just as will still have X% chance of contracting the virus even if everyone is vaccinated. the analogy still works
    But not by a drunk driver. Let's keep it on the drunk driver analogy. You have still an x% chance of dying of something other than COVID, that's passed on to you by a vaccinated person. You have X% chance of passing something on to someone else and them dying from it, even if you are both vaccinated. You don't get more immunity from the drunk driver by not being a drunk driver.
    YOUR analogy, with YOUR qualifier that i'd have 0% chance of being killed by a drunk driver would be like saying i'd have 0% chance of contracting the virus from an unvaccinated person (if everybody was sober, and if everybody was vaccinated). however, i dont necessarily care if i died from a drunk driver or sober driver. i just dont want to die. and less drunk drivers on the road makes it less likely that i will die on the road
    Now you do care about yourself.
    You'd have X% chance of contracting the virus from an infected person (vaxxed, unvaxxed, doesn't matter in this example). If no one is infected, you have zero chance of contracting it from anyone. The examples given here of number of deaths of unvaxxed vs vaxxed tells me you are in less danger of dying from it than are they. How can a protected person be in more danger than an unprotected one?
    its a collective effort
    It's a collection of individual efforts.
    Last edited by DMC; 01-17-2022 at 09:15 PM.

  19. #119
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    16,211
    pssh i don't have time to vet your obscure nonsense sites.

    Prof. Dr. Cenk KIRAKLI

  20. #120
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    16,211
    That story is from august and had 2 people dying, I'd love for a world where only 2 people die
    hater and phat hands.

  21. #121
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    That story is from august and had 2 people dying, I'd love for a world where only 2 people die
    Unless you're one of the two.

  22. #122
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    What is dmc’s data source?

    usafacts.org has different totals on cases.

    Total (all time) reported covid cases:
    Texas - 5,269,803
    NY - 4,408,210

    Total covid deaths:
    Texas - 75,633
    New York - 61,374

  23. #123
    Against Home Schooling Ef-man's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    10,548
    So you lied and have no link to your data?

    Yup, honest broker b, par.

  24. #124
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,252
    DMC is incapable of understanding or accepting that the vaccines provide protection but are not 100% effective

    instead he treats those two facts as flip flopping when convenient

    boils down almost the entirety of that last rebuttal. not interested in going through it point by point anymore

  25. #125
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,111
    So you lied and have no link to your data?

    Yup, honest broker b, par.
    Texas has 10m more people than NY

    New York has 30% fewer peeps than Texas but only 18% fewer cases despite being vaccinated 22% more.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •